Why Skepticism About Computer Models Is Not A Good Reason For Skepticism About Climate Change

“The basis for human activities being the primary driver of the recent changes in climate is observation and the physical understanding of the processes that drive our climate system. Models of these physical processes further add to this understanding, especially for the future projections of further changes, but the basic science is based on observation.”

16 Responses to It’s The Feedbacks, Stupid

OK, let’s stipulate that the basic science is based on observation. When the models are able to predict future observations, we should start paying attention to what they say. But right now, with their inability to predict future observations, what they’re saying is that we don’t know what really drives the climate and cannot predict it.

I would agree that such modeling helps the science progress. Currently, it’s telling us that there’s a lot that we don’t know, and we should keep looking.

It sounded like you were defending the article. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Maybe I’m just cynical about how science is conducted after what I’ve seen since college days. The older I get, the more BS I see from mainstream academia in some things. That article sounds more like left wing propaganda trying to “prove” that models are “needed” to prove that global warming is real without really saying anything. I know enough to tell the difference.

OK, I went to the article. Yes, it is more stupid than Steven made it out to be. How often does that happen?

Yeah…let’s borrow some credibility from aerospace models (which do a good of predicting the future) to counter the observation that financial models aren’t very good at prediction. Plus other stupid assertions about what is “normal.”

Aerospace models are not even in the same league. When modeling a man made concept, man knows virtually all of the parameters, and is not guessing. You cannot compare modeling a bridge or a rocket which a man has designed, to nature’s chaotic systems.

AR4, 2.9.1 ‘Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing’, has a chart that clearly shows the IPCC has a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of 13 of the 16 identified forcings. In other words they know virtually nothing about 81% of climate drivers the have discovered.

How do you model that?

A chaotic system that is at least 81% unknown cannot be modeled accurately. Their models are pure fantasy and wishes.

I don’t understand what he means when he claims “nature” cannot explain the rise in temperature over the last 50 years. We don’t understand why the temperature rose over the last 100 years (although up until recently we thought we did). Nor can the temperature rise over the last 300 years be explained by any physical processes we yet understand. (That was why the Hockey Stick was important to the movement – it offered the idea that the reason why we couldn’t explain any of these things was because past climate was stable, hence there was no need for explanation we didn’t yet have.)